December 18, 2010

33 comments:

It's the Iraqi children flying kite depiction of Iraq all over again.Moore is SUCH a propagandist that no serious person should ever take a single word he has to say seriously nor pay him money.And good for Cuba. Even they recogniized that the depiction of their system was too good, and banned Moore's movie for the propaganda statement it is.

You have just love that Michael Moore (body fat 103%) is a critic of the US healthcare system. If there was ever a reason not to embrace national healthcare, it's him. I don't want to be on the hook for his healthcare $$$. Let this overweight fat pig pay for his own. Same with Michelle Obama. For the size of her derrier, she needs a back-up alarm. Yet they lecture us.

Oh, I'm sure MM is correct when he says that Sicko wasn't "banned" in Cuba. Why, I'm sure the exact same people who are allowed to use that nice hospital depicted in the movie were the same ones who went to see it.

Anatole France once said that if 50 million people say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing. I hold that the opposite is equally true: that if one idiot says the right thing, it's still the right thing. And given Moore's denial that "Sicko" was banned in Cuba, he should have been given the chance to respond prior to the story's publication.

Just because Moore doesn't practice sound journalism doesn't let his critics off the hook to do so themselves.

P.S. I appreciate the flattery, but I'm not a blogger. (Everybody knows there's no money in it!)

Word verification: cryonate. (Is that what happens when a frozen embryo is artificially inseminated?)

"I hold that the opposite is equally true: that if one idiot says the right thing, it's still the right thing."

People deserve to be treated the way they treat others. Moore deserves people to hound him incessantly, misrepresent events involving him to his detriment, ignore his perspective, and report only criticisms they can selectively edit to ensure mockery.

In truth, this episode doesn't even reach that standard since his propaganda is accurately portrayed.

When liberals cite's Cuba's great healthcare system to me, I blow a frickin' gasket. How do you know? Did you read the government statistics? Did you visit the government hospital? That's the government you trust, the unelected one?

Just think, if George W. Bush had an armed revolution, outlawed the Democratic party, shut down all the newspapers, turned off the internet, and closed off the borders so nobody could escape, Michael Moore would make a fawning documentary about how wonderful our health care is.

You have to be a real dishonest putz to call yourself a democrat and support a dictator-for-life.

Moore disputes SICKO was banned in Cuba, and says it played in theaters and on tv.

I don't claim personal knowledge of the truth, but if Moore's claim is correct, it shows that the U.S.A. not only lies publicly about virtually everything, but that it lies even in private internal cables.

I don't know how many "liberals" tout Cuba's Cuba's healthcare system as "great" or "wonderful," but in SICKO there was a list shown of nations listed in order of the quality of their healthcare systems. I believe Cuba was ranked 39th and America 37th.

Given the wealth of us and the poverty of them, that says less about the wonders of Cuba's system and more about the deficiencies of ours.

I don't claim personal knowledge of the truth, but if Moore's claim is correct, it shows that the U.S.A. not only lies publicly about virtually everything, but that it lies even in private internal cables.

You're excluding the possibilities that a) the cable was correct at the time it was sent, and b) the cable-sender was honestly mistaken.

But of course they're part of the liberal/socialist/communist conspiracy to deny the unparalleled wonderfulness of the United States, so you can comfortably ignore any suggestion that we don't offer the bestest health care system in the solar system!

I always figured that "Cuba has a high quality health care system" was something that liberals said when the camera was on, but that in private they actually knew better. But, I was having breakfast at Mickie's Dairy Bar at the time Sicko was showing and listened to the conversation of two, middle aged, stylishly progressive women in the next booth who had seen the movie. They had bought it; hook, line, and sinker.

"but in SICKO there was a list shown of nations listed in order of the quality of their healthcare systems."

Virtually all international rankings for healthcare and most other services include a component for "fairness" or "access", a euphemism for method of payment. Inclusion of this component is simply a political preference by the international and NGO communities that they prefer a socialist payment mechanism. It has zero impact on quality or actual service delivery. It is specifically included to justify ranking the US lower than justified. Everyone who cites such ranking as authoritative should be both mocked and understood as a (possibly unwitting) socialist stooge.

"Virtually all international rankings for healthcare and most other services include a component for "fairness" or "access", a euphemism for method of payment. Inclusion of this component is simply a political preference by the international and NGO communities that they prefer a socialist payment mechanism. It has zero impact on quality or actual service delivery."

If many in a nation's population cannot avail themselves of the health care available to others due to lack of access--that is, because they cannot afford it--this does affect that nation's quality of health overall. That we have superb doctors and medical facilities means nothing to those citizens who cannot afford them. A ranking of a nation's health care system is not merely an appraisal of the expertise and skill of its doctors or the efficacy of the advanced technologies employed to preserve life or remedy illness, but also of the resulting quality of health seen in its populace overall, (e.g., mortality rates, disease rates, expected life spans, etc.).

I was gravely ill a dozen years ago and received wonderful care that literally saved my life. If I had not been employed in a job with a very good health insurance plan I either would have been unable to have had that care--and would be dead today--or I would certainly have been bankrupted if I had had to pay the medical expenses without insurance coverage. My access to care was as important to my recovery and present quality of life as was the care itself.

This component is quite pertinent to a ranking of the overall quality of a nation's health care system.

"If many in a nation's population cannot avail themselves of the health care available to others due to lack of access--that is,"

And yet the poor in America do receive health care. So while your hypothetical may have some truth as a stand alone statement, it's completely irrelevant to the circumstances they are applied to. The fact that the poor receive care shows this value judgement is not about care, but rather about who controls the system.

It's quite revealing that the international health and NGO communities are more accepting of Cuba's system whereby the poor don't receive adequate care (because the facilities and doctors don't exist in sufficient quantity) than they are of our payment system.

"And yet the poor in America do receive health care...the fact that the poor receive care...."

And all children go to heaven.

How do you know? How many of the poor receive health care? What is the extent or quality of that care? I can guarantee I would not have received the care that saved my life had I been penniless. Even with my health insurance, in order for my insurer to approve payment for my expensive medication, my attending doctor had to call the insurance company and threaten to put me back in the hospital to receive the treatment--where they would not only have had no choice but to pay for the medication but also for the additional hosptal expenses.

It's quite easy for you to make blanket assertions without offering any substantive breakdown of the reality you purport.

I know a number of people in difficult financial circumstances who have had to forego medical attention for lack of health insurance and the personal funds to pay the fees. In my own visits to Emergency rooms and doctor's offices, the first thing they ask for is to see my insurance card to verify I have coverage. To the extent that emergency rooms--preferably the medical care of last resort but often the first and only option for the indigent--must attend to everyone who walks in the door, you can be sure that if there are not actually many who are turned away, there are many who receive only the most cursory of attention and who are then sent on their way. And, they are billed for services received. If they cannot pay, this simply adds to debt they probably already carry.

It doesn't take much personal experience of our medical system to realize that many Americans live in persistent illness or die for lack of access to adequate (or any) care.

Your blithe "let them eat cake" declaration rings hollow, and reveals that you would rather not be bothered facing the harsh realities of our health care system. In a land where no peep is raised at spending trillions on war-making and murder, it is a crime that we do not provide full medical care for all our citizens.

Those of us who have adequate (or better) food, shelter, and health care are not blessed by God for our virtue, but just happen to be goddamned lucky.

"And, they are billed for services received. If they cannot pay, this simply adds to debt they probably already carry."

You again reveal that your objection is to the payment method, not access. People are expected to pay if they can. The left has a problem with this, but understand the public does not. So they hide their objection with a mishmash of irrelevancies.

"You again reveal that your objection is to the payment method, not access. People are expected to pay if they can."

Because inability to pay , as you won't acknowledge, is a bar to access. Your assertion that all poor in America have access to health care is unsupported. People do die in this country due to lack of access to health care.